Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Friday, 5th September 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Council votes in favour of controversial Haymarket hotel



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 25 June 2008
A TOWERING 17-storey hotel is set to be built near Haymarket Station after city councillors gave the go-ahead for the controversial £200 million plans this morning.
During a lengthy meeting of the planning committee, councillors voted ten-five in favour of the scheme, which will be built on the site of the former Morrison Street goods yard.

As well as a flagship 192-bedroom five-star hotel that will be seen from miles around, the plans also include a neighbouring three-star 245-bedroom Travelodge, offices, shops and restaurants.

Luxury chain InterContinental is to run the main hotel, which includes a swimming pool and bar at the top of the hotel and conference facilities.

City planning leader Jim Lowrie said: "This is a superb development and will bring vitality to this area.

"The high building isn't too obtrusive. It's a world-class building, and we need (it] for this city."

During the debate, John Nesbitt, managing director of the firm behind the scheme – Tiger Developments – and architect Richard Murphy urged councillors to back their plans, promising a "landmark building".

Mr Murphy said: "This is a concept of a more vibrant and exciting place. Things that are new shouldn't necessarily be seen as threatening.
"We're not talking about just any sort of hotel here – if you wish to have a landmark building, it has to be seen."

But community leaders and local councillors all voiced their opposition. The Cockburn Association compared the 17-storey hotel to Edinburgh University's unpopular Appleton Tower building, while Edinburgh World Heritage Trust deputy director Jane Jackson said: "The proposed tower is alien".

SNP city centre councillor David Beckett, who was speaking as a local representative, said: "This is completely inappropriate in the heart of one of the most beautiful cities in the world."

However, planning committee member and Labour councillor Maureen Child said: "I think this will be a contribution to the skyline.

"If we were to refuse it, it would be an opportunity badly missed."
Lending her support, former Lord Provost Lesley Hinds admitted: "We will be damned or we might be congratulated in the future."

The five councillors who opposed the development were the Lib Dem's Charles Dundas, Tory Joanna Mowat, Green councillor Steve Burgess, the SNP's Colin Keir and Lib Dem Gary Peacock.

Councillors Lowrie, Hinds, Child, Alastair Paisley, Stuart Roy McIvor, Eric Milligan, Elaine Morris, Rob Munn, Cameron Rose and Marjorie Thomas all voted in favour.

The Haymarket redevelopment is estimated to generate £8.75m per year for the city, and create nearly 1700 local jobs.

Previous proposals, drawn up by council development firm EDI, already have planning permission, but will now be "superseded" by today's decision.

Councillors have stipulated a number of conditions, however, including the establishment of a stakeholder group with local residents and further consideration of the location of public toilets. Backers will also have to pay £4.14m towards Edinburgh's tram network.

Because the council has a financial interest in the site, which was formerly owned by EDI, the application will now pass to Scottish Ministers for final approval. However, it is thought unlikely they will step in.

The full article contains 530 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 26 June 2008 7:32 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Edinburgh planning issues
 
1

Salvatori,

25/06/2008 14:03:24
But hark! Where will i urinate now?!
2

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

25/06/2008 14:05:08
Didnt this happen last week ?
3

20something,

Edinburgh 25/06/2008 14:13:31
It looks good!
4

Statsman,

Edinburgh 25/06/2008 14:13:35
Councillors votes in favour of giving themselves over £4m to aid their hated over-budget tram project.

Imagine my shock.

The council is totally corrupt.
5

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

25/06/2008 14:15:25
Worlds biggest Cottage.
6

Statsman,

Edinburgh 25/06/2008 14:19:08
Businesses are going under. Our skyline is ruined. All for a railed version of the 22 bus?

Resign now you crooks.
7

Statsman,

Edinburgh 25/06/2008 14:20:37
Treason!
8

JulesF,

25/06/2008 14:20:46
Other breaking news, WH Smiths reports a shortage of manilla envelopes in their Edinburgh stores !
9

Randan,

25/06/2008 14:29:12
Yes, last week they were saying that the developers must pay a tram subsidy of £4m, instead of the usual brown envelopes, and this week the £4m has been agreed by the developers and they've got planning permission.
What a surprise!
This will be in Private Eye sooner or later.
Open corruption.
10

Statsman,

Edinburgh 25/06/2008 14:41:19
9 Randan

Indeed.

"Councillors Lowrie, Hinds, Child, Alastair Paisley, Stuart Roy McIvor, Eric Milligan, Elaine Morris, Rob Munn, Cameron Rose and Marjorie Thomas all voted in favour."

All bad apples that are not to be trusted.

You should have done the honourable thing and voted against or abstained. That way the developers would have had to appeal to the neutral parliament who have no interest in the project. Instead, you made it quite clear you had no ethical standards.
11

Randan,

25/06/2008 14:44:15
#10 Statsman

'Instead, you made it quite clear you had no ethical standards.'

LOL! I think they've made that abundantly clear in the past. This is just another peach of an example.
12

Scotish Exile,

25/06/2008 14:48:10
pity they couldn't build it in the Meadowbank black hole, might not have much of an impact on the skyline then!
That will be another 1,700 jobs for foreigners
13

,

25/06/2008 15:22:28
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
14

Gastric Antral Vascular Ectasia,

25/06/2008 15:37:17
Every new building seems to be "controversial" as far as the EEN is concerned. Or am I just mad?

15

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

25/06/2008 15:43:05
13 well said. If this newspaper serves its populace its rather sad. We're not all angered, dismayed and enraged. Currently Thief Central Car Park, dodgy toilets and Jakie benches. If thats what you are fighting to protect then heaven help you.
16

I love to eat Sellotape,

25/06/2008 15:50:08
What makes a building "world class"? I'd really like to know.
17

tomias,

Edinburgh 25/06/2008 15:52:50
It only ever looks half built; when will it be impressionaly finished ?
18

dba,

Caledonian Crescent 25/06/2008 15:53:30
SHAME, SHAME on the whole council. For over three years now there has been a growing sense of disquiet about this project.
Little or NO notice has actually been taken of local views...the carrots of £4 Million support for the tram network is positively obscene and as for the planning officers applauding the concept...WHO on earth do they think they are? (They are highly paid to SERVE the citizens including those around Haymarket)
At 17 storey high, this project will dwarf and demene the whoile area. One of the world's most iconic Georgian skylines will have this monster obstructing and destroying it....1700 jobs (Local people to get priority - not on your Nellie!)
The ONLY positive aspect of all of this will be the removal of advertising hoardings.
Lastly - if you think traffic around the area is bad NOW... JUST WAIT UNTIL THE HOTELS, SHOPS AND OFFICES HAVE BEEN BUILT...you'll not be able to see the trams for log-jammed cars and buses!
Come on Scottish Government - lets see SOMEONE TAKE COGNISANCE OF LOCAL VIEWS AND RESTORE SOME SANITY.(As opposed to the rose-tinted spectacles of the developers, architects and planners... of aye... a few councillors who don;t live near the site and yet felt they could vote YES! SHAME... SHAME.... SHAME...
19

Goat Boy,

25/06/2008 16:05:07
dba: take a look at this:

http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Pollution-threat-casts-cloud-over.3467729.jp

It's funny the difference a few months can make.
20

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

25/06/2008 16:06:28
18 and you wonder why some people die early of strokes and heart disease.
21

Statsman,

Edinburgh 25/06/2008 16:07:33
15 The Genuine Mario Antoinette

Do you agree with corruption? Do you work for the council? You spend a lot of time on here promoting council projects.
22

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

25/06/2008 16:24:25
Its not corruption. Are you taking Cannabis ?
23

Statsman,

Edinburgh 25/06/2008 16:25:07
19 Goat Boy

Is the real difference 'months' or £4m+ of money to help fill a black hole in the hated trams project budget?

When this council is done destroying small businesses, selling its soul and selling the family silver for trams, will there be a city worth loving in left?
24

Statsman,

Edinburgh 25/06/2008 16:28:38
22 The Genuine Mario Antoinette

Explain how it isn't corruption? To any right thinking person, taking money to influence council policy is corruption. It doesn't matter if it is legalised. This case underlines why it shouldn't be legal.
25

Billy the Fish,

Edinburgh 25/06/2008 16:32:18
SHAME ON EDINBURGH CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSENTING TO THIS 17 STOREY SKYSCRAPER MONSTER ON THE EDGE OF A WORLD HERITAGE SITE.

Great to have a new development but what on earth do they think they're doing consenting to the height of this thing.

Oh well, there goes Edinburgh's historic skyline. Good on you Councillors.

Unless of course the the Scottish Government come to the rescue: Please restore some sanity to this mess.
26

SPG,

edinburgh 25/06/2008 16:33:15
Who cares? Embra is phuqued.
27

GraemeH,

Edinburgh 25/06/2008 16:52:44
Wonder if this would have been approved if the artists impression showed the true scale of this building? It is supposed to be 17 storeys, but appears to be only twice the height of the existing building. Edinburgh's first hotel suitable only for dwarves.

The fact this hotel is conditional on developer contribtions to the tram farce is corruption of the planning process.

28

Draco Was a Wimp,

Edinburgh 25/06/2008 16:53:43
It's hardly going to affect the view of the castle which, let's face it, isn't exactly spectacular from the west anyway. Just a muckle 19th century barracks block, hardly inspiring. The article is right about Appleton Tower though. That is a scabby disgrace. And the new buildings beside it are pretty dull as well. What is it about Edinburgh that we can't get a really good modern building?
29

Fast Phil,

25/06/2008 17:00:35
Shame on all concerned and bl** dy eyesore. Edinburgh is a famed and beautiful city and is being ruined. Who will want to come and visit to look at hideous tower blocks? Whether you like it or tourism is a major earner.
Disaster.
30

charliegreen,

edinburgh 25/06/2008 17:07:50
And guess what it'll be built upon, railway tunnel, sinky sinky sinky.
31

Goat Boy,

25/06/2008 17:31:56
dba and statsman - Quick search on Google and I found these

http://www.edinburghgreens.org.uk/site/press-coverage/haymarket-air/

So much for the Greens having any influence on what’s going on. And then I found this. Haymarket is part of an air quality management area.

http://download.edinburgh.gov.uk/AirQuality/map1.pdf

I suppose that must mean the air is bad. So they plan to make it worse.

Now there’s real progress.

32

Statsman,

Edinburgh 25/06/2008 17:43:04
31 Goat Boy

Well spotted. So this decision will actually cost the council tax payers of Edinburgh in fines over and over in the future?

Totally corrupt.
33

Concerned Citizen,

Edinburgh 25/06/2008 17:44:25
This just shows how corrupt the practice of using so called 'Planning Gain' in the Planning Permission process really is. All the City Council needs to do is put a cash price on any development now and if the developer can pay then they get the permission regardless of what the local people say.

In this city, there are communities waiting years for basic amenities such as pedestrian crossings but are waiting for 'Planning Gain' from local developers with their community. Is that not why we pay Council Taxes for?

To commit £4million of this so call 'Planning Gain' to a single project (ie Trams) when there are so many other local projects have suffered from this current series of cut backs in council spending, most notable is the recent closure of the Gorgie and Dalry Gazette which provided the area near Haymarket with a local newspaper,is grossly unethical.

Time for council to question their ethics and unlink planning gain for the decision process.
34

The Judge,

25/06/2008 18:30:17
Expect quite a few more of this type of development, that tramLINE won't pay for itself you know.

When is a bribe not a bribe? When its a contribution to the never ending tramLINE project of course.

I wonder what Buckie Milligan is getting out of it?

35

rs,

in ma house 25/06/2008 18:44:51
No 4 Statsman,
Edinburgh 25/06/2008 14:13:35
Councillors votes in favour of giving themselves over £4m to aid their hated over-budget tram project

If this is correct, then isn't there a conflict of interests.

Yip Money Speaks, no longer brown envelopes, just briefcases full of money.

"The high building isn't too obtrusive. It's a world-class building, and we need (it] for this city."

However, planning committee member and Labour councillor Maureen Child said: "I think this will be a contribution to the skyline.......msut be most obvious Quote of the day

have these Cllrs even looked at the Pictures and Blot on the skyline this will cause.

People can hardly change the colour of their doors in some areas, but as we all know money talks!!!
36

,

25/06/2008 18:45:40
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
37

jdships,

25/06/2008 19:32:07
Architect Richard Murphy is quoted as saying -
"We're not talking about just any sort of hotel here – if you wish to have a landmark building, it has to be seen."

Wowee !!
Must have sat up night's thinking up that one .

Must say 35 and 36 put very good points indeed.

38

Rap,

Haymarket 25/06/2008 19:32:11
One of the things that helped sway the decision was that the photomontages Tiger produced showed minimal ipact on the skyline from long distant viewpoints. No matter that the photo used had a suitably hazy background so the light building disappeared into the haze. How convenient.
39

Rap,

Haymarket 25/06/2008 19:34:32
Richard Murphy also compared his building to St. Giles and St. Mary's today. If only.
40

Concerned Citizen,

Edinburgh 25/06/2008 19:36:47
No 35 rs, "If this is correct, then isn't there a conflict of interests."

YES a mighty big conflict of interest.
Considering a planning application be a small garage to a bigger project should be a fair and considered process. The developer or individual has already paid a fair fee for the administration of the council's consideration. The developer then is asked for another fee namely 'Planning Gain' by the council as contribution to the local needs. If the developer can afford it then forms a legally binding agreement attached to the permission. If a developer said NO hey would their development be granted permission ? NO

So is 'planning gain' a bribe ? You decide !
41

Rap,

Haymarket 25/06/2008 19:41:21
Despite having made their decision today on this site, there is a draft Framework document for the Haymarket area that needs to be finalised (no, I have no idea why it wasn't done before the decision today). It's out for consultation, so all those who have an interest in Haymarket's future, please comment!

http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/internet/Environment/Planning_buildings_i_i_/Planning/Planning_policies/Development_frameworks_and_strategies/CEC_haymarket_urban_design_framework_-_consultation_draft
42

Lang Spoon,

The trenches in Leith 25/06/2008 20:33:03
There are examples in the city of good modern architecture; I would offer Saltire Court and the Standard Life head office to be admired.
There are also examples of abominable modern work; foot of the Royal Mile?
This offering for Haymarket regretfully falls in the latter category.
43

Road Raga,

EDINBURGH 25/06/2008 21:24:54
What a bunch of ignorant people on here today. Their only argument that everyone on the planning committee was bribed.
The planning committee had to consider all of the facts (which you lot DID NOT BOTHER TO LOOK INTO) and come to a decision, which they did after a democratic vote. Thats how the planning system is mean't to work !
Perhaps before certain posters on here make accusions, or claims, they should GET THIER FACTS RIGHT first, and not base their ignorant ranting on a few lines in a newspaper !
44

The Geniune Mario Antionette,

25/06/2008 21:40:55
As long as Balfour Beatty / Haden Building (aka Consort) aren't in the frame for building it.
45

jdships,

25/06/2008 22:17:15
43 Road Raga,

Serious question to you
How do you rate the £4m payed by the developer's to the Council ?

I'm not quite sure if it is money being paid to influence a planning decision.
If it is is it not bribery ?
It's gone through so I suppose we will never know as it will just be swept under the carpet as with "Holyrood"
46

Foo,

ejinbara 25/06/2008 22:34:34
I agree with the hotel, but does it have to look the same as Scottish Widows Bank, just up the road?

Isn't it strange that all new large builds in Edinburgh city center look the same? Almost like the same company is building them all and the same person is approving them all...probably coincidence?!
47

Maxibus,

25/06/2008 22:35:09
All those who will benefit from the building of the beloved tram will have to contribute to the construction cost. That's not corruption it's for the common good.
48

Foo,

25/06/2008 22:35:14
ps. Balfour Beatty suck a55. I have proof.
49

jimb4abobor2,

Edinburgh 26/06/2008 00:18:26
labour & Edinburgh deceased 17 stories for 4 million for trams well that does not add up to much per floor 250,000 i think per floor they should have asked for more at least a million per-floor that way another 17 million to trams or compensation for closed business.
50

Think Tank,

26/06/2008 00:33:21
So to summarise the anti-development's arguments with the same logic that they use:

** Private developers should NOT contribute to the tram scheme in the agreed manner (those adjacent to the new link) because it opens up the planning process to influence. i.e. all tram funds should be from the taxpayer only.

** Council democracy is pointless because "we" don't agree with it (despite this passing 10 votes to 5). Let's live in a dictatorship.

Great thinking all round guys, you've really excelled yourselves today.

51

Statsman,

Edinburgh 26/06/2008 03:07:04
43 Road Raga

Did you read GoatBoy's link?

"Green councillors have raised concerns about the impact of new developments on one of the city’s pollution blackspots.

Following a meeting of Full Council in September, Green Councillor, Steve Burgess won backing for a motion seeking action on air pollution, recognising that in 3 years the city could be fined for breaching air quality standards.

But now another Green councillor, Maggie Chapman, has raised concerns about air pollution impacts of the planning application by Tiger Developments around the Morrison Street – Haymarket – Dalry Road area.

The area is one of Edinburgh’s notorious pollution blackspots, and is set to fail stringent new laws on pollution from 2010 onwards. The Greens believe that the only thing that keeps pollution from being much worse is the relatively open nature of the Haymarket junction. They fear that the Tiger development which includes a 16 storey hotel will create a “canyon” effect which will concentrate pollutants like nitrogen dioxide."

This city is going to be paying fines in order that this development be built and the council gets its £4.14m kickback for trams.

The citizens didn't ask for trams. We had it thrust upon us. Now we have to say goodbye to our skyline and pay endless fines because the desperate bankrupt council needs money for trams - a project the citizen by and large did not want.

Last week they said they were going to sell £10m of council property (the taxpayer's property) to fund this project we didn't want or need.

Children are having to make do with sub-standard school meals because of the budget crisis. Numerous other services are being slashed. Yet the council redirects assets belonging to the people of Edinburgh to trams.

It's insane and immoral. Yet you apologise for it. Shame on you.
52

Statsman,

Edinburgh 26/06/2008 03:29:06
50 Think Tank

Blah. Blah. Council PR doublespeak and misdirection.

Citizens have no problem with developers handing over money to the council. We do have a problem with large sums of money influencing council policy.

If the councillors that voted for this project had ANY level of positive ethics, they would have realised that it was a very bad idea for them to vote on it. The bribe was too large, the council is in too much of an economic shambles and the tram project is crawling toward financial ruin.

Anyone with a modicum of common sense can see that represents a huge conflict of interest. An upstanding councillor would have abstained and said "I just can't do that." Instead we have slime with no ethical standards that say 'Yes' to anything that makes their life that little bit easier - no matter what the future problems are to the city or its taxpayers.

They should have said 'No' and invoked an appeal.
53

Think Tank,

26/06/2008 03:51:59
#52

You don't understand the tram contribution scheme do you?

This is a mandatory fee for all new developments within a certain distance of the tram system- a recognition of the benefits that the trams will have for businesses that set up on its route.

Tiger developments didn't offer to pay £4m in contribution. I'm fairly sure if they had anything to do with it they would offer zero pounds.

They were REQUIRED to pay this money as ANY developer of that plot of land with the scale of development proposed would be.

The land development as proposed is worth £4m in contributions regardless of who or when they develop it.

It really is risible when Edinburgh Evening News online anonymous commentators think they've hit on the journalistic scoop of the century- a "bribe" reported in a council meeting but overlooked by everyone else.

Everyone with more than 2 braincells that is.

And for your information, the tram scheme is not crawling towards financial ruin- it's still well within its allocated budget, and there's more good financial news on that front coming soon. You'd be far better pouring your scorn at the £600m+ M74 extension- all 5 miles of it...more expensive than the tram scheme (less than half the length), out of control costs etc. Oh wait, that one was backed by the SNP wasn't it....
54

Rap,

Haymarket 26/06/2008 07:57:11
#43
Perhaps you should get all your facts straight before ranting. I did look into all the facts produced over the last year, and did attend the planning committee meeting. One significant contributor to the acceptance of the tiger scheme was the fact the site already had planning approval for an alternative development, granted a few years ago. In hindsight, nobody now likes that development so they were concerned that if they refused this application someone (almost definitely not Tiger) would come along and build to the old plans. A terrible reason to accept this planning application!

Another option discussed yesterday was the possibility of keeping most of the site but rejecting the 17 storey hotel (too tall for this site but an okay design), but they backed away from this decision as well.

The contribution to the tram was never discussed, probably because as people have mentioned above, all development in proximity to the tram route must stump up. The did developers did get a hammering over their poor consultation process with residents and the fact they ddn't seem to have really thought through the flow of traffic through the site, with pedestrians on their great boulevard.

These are the facts Road Raga.
55

Road Raga,

EDINBURGH 26/06/2008 08:28:49
Rap, I think you will find that the planning process was followed to the letter.
The developer bought the site, and has a right to develop it. Yes of course it should be subject to scrutiny, as it was.
But at the end of the day, a dozen or so residents should not be allowed to dictate that a £200m developent can't be built as it would spoil the view from their kitchen window.
56

Rap,

haymarket 26/06/2008 09:07:16
#55
Did I say the planning process wasn't followed to the letter? What I said was what had happened. However, what was not discussed was how this development fits in with the Council's own planning policies, high buildings, in-fill sites, materials, traffic, etc. This was not discussed and if it had I imagine the faults in the scheme may have been highlighted more clearly.

And I think your maths is a little out, there are a few hundred residents and pedestrians who will be directly affected by this site, in terms of overshadowing particularly, wind, overlooking. At least be objective. And why shouldn't residents get a say in a £200m development - it should be subject to close scrutiny. The developers are out to make their buck, as with any other business, but this is one that will affect Edinburgh as a whole (in terms of setting a precedent with building height now).
57

Leila,

Edinburgh 26/06/2008 09:38:25
#53: "And for your information, the tram scheme is not crawling towards financial ruin- it's still well within its allocated budget, and there's more good financial news on that front coming soon".

Now how do you know that? You are effectively boasting of inside knowledge.
58

Buttress,

26/06/2008 09:47:27
13 Man On Corstorphine Omnibus,Edinburgh

Ms Jackson is not of the Cockburn Association - she is Deputy Director of the council-sponsored Edinburgh World Heritage Trust, and as such charged with (under a management agreement to which the council is a signatory) protection of the World Heritage Site and its buffer zone from this sort of unsuitable development. She responded on behalf of the Trust as a consultee.

There is no reason to spoil the historic skyline with tall buildings. Indeed there are supposed to be policies in place to protect the city from unsuitably high buildings.

Iconic? It's lump which the architect and his ego might think is iconic - I suspect it will be deeply regretted for years to come.


Edinburgh is on the agenda for discussion at the UNESCO international conference in July - it has alreday been critical of the council's protection of the site in the past, and recent decisions will not help matters.

Coun Lowrie as also on the Board of Directors of EWH - he has voted for Caltongate and for this, and I think he should be called now to resign as clearly he has no reagard for the World Heritage status of the city.
59

Vandala,

26/06/2008 09:47:41
Great design, great location, good potential for jobs, where's the problem here? Just because something is new doesn't automatically mean it's a bad idea.
60

Buttress,

26/06/2008 09:55:50
This is a bad idea, and should have been scrapped.
61

Rap,

Haymarket 26/06/2008 10:00:47
Vandala, just because it's new it doesn't mean it's a good idea, and that wasn't really proven. Shouldn't we start where we need to justify something than find reason to object? It's likely to have a far more beneficial outcome for all in Edinburgh.

It needs to be a great design *in* the great location.
62

Rap,

Haymarket 26/06/2008 10:05:40
Buttress did you attend yesterday?
63

Concerned Citizen,

Edinburgh 26/06/2008 10:07:14
No 55,
"But at the end of the day, a dozen or so residents should not be allowed to dictate that a £200m developent can't be built as it would spoil the view from their kitchen window"

Actually a few thousand folks live around Haymarket.

A development such as this could have a serious effect on the ammenity and value of the surrounding property. What you are saying is to these people we will build anything and to hell with the cost to you. Who in their right mind wuld choose to live in the shadow of a 17 storey building. Once it is built these residents , who normally quite happy to stay there, have no choice they are stuck with it or they ,at their own cost, move out. Why should they be made to feel that way? They loose out. The developer then gets rich at the residents cost. YES the residents should and MUST have a say.


64

Buttress,

26/06/2008 10:14:45
62 No - it was a foregone conclusion, I find the ruminations of councillors sick making as so fw have any idae what they are doing, Alan Henderson ignores any significant and informed opposition in writing his planning reports, and I'm more interested now in seeing what UNESCO does. I doubt the government will veto this, it's just happy to rubber stamp through anything, scared to say no no matter what is under threat or how bad it is. Claims for jobs etc are never followed up, and 'economics' are all that seems to be thought of. It's snouts in troughs time in Edinburgh for any carpetbagging developer, as no-one wants to be seen to be saying no - or you get the Chamber of Commerce telling them it's going to be bad for the city.

What is lost? History, beauty, and what makes Edinburgh special.

No-one seems to be able or willing to say no to any developer, to asy the Emperor is naked.

But Lowrie must now be removed from either the council or EWH - his position is untenable.
65

Vandala,

26/06/2008 11:26:05
#61. Granted. But...

1) Haymarket isn't exactly the most salubrious part of town. In fact, it's pretty seedy. If they were building it somewhere like on the Royal Mile, I'd probably agree with you, but they're not: they're putting it a place that presently has virtually no amenities. There's the pedestrian footprint from the train station, but otherwise, it's not exactly a place where tourists go to visit or residents choose to socialise.

2)Parochial cities tend to look at tall buildings as eye-sores. Obviously, they can be if they get the design wrong, but tall buildings can equally be inspirational. It's a beautiful design: bold, ambitious, and potentially breath-taking. Who in their right mind would live in the shadow of a 17 storey building (63)? Millions of people in Manhattan are more than happy to.

...and before the usual nay-sayers accuse me of something daft like working for the developers, I don't, and have no vested interests. I just think it's a well-executed idea and one that needs to be welcomed. Buildings will outlast any of the dyed-in-the-wool Mr. Grumblies that haunt this reactionary and often paranoid website.
66

Buttress,

26/06/2008 11:30:26
It's a bad idea as it is in the buffer of the WHS, and it should not have been given permission. Once any heights and views agreement has been breached, then really it will be hard (as developers will tell you...) to refuse in future.

The planning report was a disgrace, ignored seriously informed opposition, and if Alan Henderson wasn't retiring I think his competency should be questioned. Indeed, I still think there is time for an investigation. The idea this 'enhances' the WHS is risible. Sadly, city planners have no idea of what is and is not an 'enhancement'.
67

Peter - very disappointed/concerned,

Edinburgh 26/06/2008 11:45:28
#65 Vandala

I agree entirely with your comments and observations in point 2.

This development can only improve Haymarket as the area is currently both very depressing and run-down. Personally I think the design of this stunning new building is both stimulating and imaginative.

Regarding UNESCO's 'intervention', like its counterpart the UN, their observations will hopefully be ignored. UNESCO like their more 'senior' clone the UN, are just another collection of toothless paper tigers whom no one can take seriously in the modern world.
68

Rap,

Haymarket 26/06/2008 11:52:28
#65
I'm a little confused by your argument - you are the one who said it was a great location, and now it's not? What happened in Haymarket in the last 30 mins? Haymarket is pretty schizophrenic, but not seedy in my opinion. You have the really lovely listed buildings with some less than lovely retail provisions, but hardly seedy. Morrison St. and Dalry Road could do with a bit of a boost, but there are shops there and they are (presuambly) functioning economically.

And if you think about it, there are already several amenities - Hotels: The Hilton, the Apex International, the Travel inn. Supermarkets: Sainsburys, Somerfield. Pubs: numerous. offices: Canning St, Rosebury House, City point, Exchange. Hardly a vacuum.

The aim of the site was to rejuvenate Haymarket, but what evidence is there that *this* development will do this. The flow of the public area is better than the previously approved scheme, but that is not sufficient to justify an "iconic / landmark / gateway" hotel like this. Remember, there are big plans for the whole of Haymarket and yet there is NO masterplan for the area yet. Why not wait until money for the Haymarket station is found and we all have a better idea of the plans there, and allow the two sites to complement each other. Now a commercial developer will dictate the design and functionality of a publically funded key transport hub. Now, if you are that concerned by amenities, that should worry you. Everyone's aim is to improve Haymarket, but I'll say it again, why should residents and the WH status be threatened because of a developer's ego?
69

Buttress,

26/06/2008 11:54:52
Peter - I've always though you a spot uninformed - now I know you are.
70

Buttress,

26/06/2008 11:58:43
'Now a commercial developer will dictate the design and functionality of a publically funded key transport hub. Now, if you are that concerned by amenities, that should worry you. Everyone's aim is to improve Haymarket, but I'll say it again, why should residents and the WH status be threatened because of a developer's ego?'

Absolutely. It's not a great and innovative building, its a hotel for heavens's sake, and far, far better and more ssympathetic should heve been sought. Sadly, there are some who think just beacuse it's new and shiny it will be 'iconic'. No, it's just new and shiny and the wrong building in the wrong place.

Isn't it sad though that here we have one of the world's most beautiful cities, and some are falling over themselves to admire the new clothes of the Emperor? To allow it to be spoiled?
71

Rap,

Haymarket 26/06/2008 12:01:53
And, if we are to talk about design - the 3* hotel. That is one ugly, grey mo-fo. Disgusting! So, even within the site the developers have created a jarring effect between the faux sandstone of Tiger Tower and the foul grey cheap panels of the 3*. That is the son of Haymarket House is nothing else. And what does that do for Haymarket, eh?
72

Buttress,

26/06/2008 12:05:36
But these people don't know or care - it's all shiny and new so it has to be good... ask them why, ask them about architecture and how it could fit into historic surroundings with some sympathy and some modesty, and actually be an aenhancement, they won't be able to tell you. These are the people who thought the St James' Centre was lovely too.
73

Annoyingboi,

Edinburgh 26/06/2008 14:36:39
Bye bye Edinburgh - before long, nobody is going to want to be here. This town is being RUINED!
74

Buttress,

26/06/2008 14:51:41
Sadly, I agree. While the council is happy for EWHT to pull in funds to restore monuments etc, in the wider sense, the council is spoiling what does make the city special, and brings in a great deal of cash from tourism. Soon, it will simply be like any other big city.

75

Statsman,

Edinburgh 26/06/2008 15:19:57
53 Think Tank

I understand how the system works perfectly well. Someone makes an application, the council asks for cash and the application gets planning permission on the understanding the large sum of cash is paid.

That's the way the system works. It's a terrible system that compromises ethical standards. In this system, it becomes politically expedient to pass plans for financial gain.

Like I have said, unless there are upstanding councillors willing to step aside and say it is wrong, we end up with a corrupted system.

Using your logic, anyone that is going to financially lose out due to passing plans should receive lots of compensation from the council. That doesn't happen though, does it?
76

Buttress,

26/06/2008 16:40:14
So just who is Septic Tank - telling us 'there is more good news coming soon' ... a council apologist, planted here?

77

Neo,

Edinburgh 28/06/2008 16:02:43
Another building that will destroy the views in the city centre from a building that is far too tall and does not blend in with the buidlings in that area.The people of Edinburgh are being treated with contempt by the people who run the city.

How many more tall ugly buildings will be built.
Neo

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper